I mean, can’t we send in, extract, and evacuate faster with choppers? So how come we still have paratroopers?
Okay thanks guys. Ever since ‘nam i didn’t see the purpose of paratroopers. But now i get the idea. But i guess they will be used more extensively in large scale wars.
They’ve got altitude, range and the fact you can cram more troops into a fixed-wing aircraft than the typical utility helicopter, but…
- Big parachute drops tend to scatter your troops all over the place – a section who get on the same C-130 aren’t necessarily going to readily find each other when they land, while a section who board the same helicopter will usually retain the same organization immediately after landing
- Fixed-wing aircraft used to drop paratroopers actually become more vulnerable the higher they are. Land and air-based radars will readily detect them (especially in formation), and they’ll become easy targets for SAMs and interceptors. Fine if you’re waging war against a poor country, but not in the modern conventional war we all train for. Meanwhile, helicopters flying close to the ground can actually go under waves emitted by ground radars and use hilly terrain to their advantage.
- Paratroopers are not as easily extracted as air assault troops. Not to mention air assault troops can carry in supplies and heavy equipment.
- Finally, when was the last time anyone had a major airborne operation? A few small token jumps mostly by elite forces, but that’s pretty much it. They still present a capability, but are otherwise an anachronism.
Related Articles
4 users responded in this post
Sometimes the objective is out of range for a rotary wing. Planes can fly much farther. You could fly from the US mainland to the battlespace and static line in.
References :
Paratroopers still have several advantages over helicopters. Silence for one, you can drop paratroops at high altitude and bring them in quietly, you can drop more men at a time with paratroopers. It’s cheaper for large scale drops, one plane can carry far more men than one helicopter, and helicopters are more prone to enemy fire, being as they have to land on the battlefield whereas an aircraft can drop them from way above the battlefield. There are other advantages as well.
References :
Helos haven’t replaced fixed wing drops. Planes go further, faster and carry more troops, along with other heavier equipment. They also can fly by and drop the troops out without stopping (for fastroping down) or landing (to have the troops jump out)
References :
They’ve got altitude, range and the fact you can cram more troops into a fixed-wing aircraft than the typical utility helicopter, but…
- Big parachute drops tend to scatter your troops all over the place – a section who get on the same C-130 aren’t necessarily going to readily find each other when they land, while a section who board the same helicopter will usually retain the same organization immediately after landing
- Fixed-wing aircraft used to drop paratroopers actually become more vulnerable the higher they are. Land and air-based radars will readily detect them (especially in formation), and they’ll become easy targets for SAMs and interceptors. Fine if you’re waging war against a poor country, but not in the modern conventional war we all train for. Meanwhile, helicopters flying close to the ground can actually go under waves emitted by ground radars and use hilly terrain to their advantage.
- Paratroopers are not as easily extracted as air assault troops. Not to mention air assault troops can carry in supplies and heavy equipment.
- Finally, when was the last time anyone had a major airborne operation? A few small token jumps mostly by elite forces, but that’s pretty much it. They still present a capability, but are otherwise an anachronism.
References :
Leave A Reply
Please Note: Comment moderation maybe active so there is no need to resubmit your comments